by Stephen Lendman
Months before November's election, New York Times editors made their choice: Obama in 2012. Expect an official endorsement to follow.
Editorial support signals it. On June 14, The Times headlined "The Political Contrast," saying:
Obama's recent Cleveland community college speech "contrast(ed) his goals and the failed Bush-era policies that Mitt Romney is trying to resurrect."
He claimed "no meaningful difference between the trickle-down economics of George W. Bush, rejected (and) the plans supported by Mr. Romney and his Republican allies in Congress."
"All the elements are there, from the slavish devotion to tax cuts for the rich, to a contempt for government regulation, to savage cutbacks in programs for those at the bottom."
Earlier, Times editors supported Bush era politics they now call "failed." They endorsed the fraudulent 2000 election results.
They downplayed Bush's National Guard record, his alcoholism and drug abuse, his explosive temper, and unimpressive academic record.
They ignored his family ties, his record as Texas governor, and unbridled pro-business support.
Ten months after he took office, they claimed recount totals showed he won Florida when he lost. They said the Supreme Court "did not cast the deciding vote" when, in fact, it annulled popular and electoral totals to anoint their choice.
They reported a litany of misinformation. Kernels of truth were buried multiple paragraphs into texts. Few readers saw them.
What Times editors supported earlier they now oppose. Why they'll have to explain. Both parties are in lockstep on major issues mattering most. Not a dime's worth of difference separates them. Times editors know but won't say.
Instead they quoted Obama saying:
"If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney."
"You should take them at their word, and they will take America down this path. And Mr. Romney is qualified to deliver on that plan."
They cited Romney "denounc(ing) virtually all forms of regulation, from ones cleaning the air to those preventing banks from engaging in the same destructive behavior that produced the Great Recession on Mr. Bush's watch."
"If only the government would get out of the way, he suggested, and stop trying to cover those without health insurance, or keep the groundwater clean, then jobs would magically reappear."
Obama's proposals "are more likely to put people back to work."
Romney's "free-market ideas (are) bankrupt."
"Breaking the grip of these ideas truly is, as Mr. Obama said....'a make-or-break moment for America's middle class."
Unexplained is that both candidates support similar policies. Pretending one differs from the other is false, duplicitous, and pernicious.
Perhaps George Bernard Shaw had Obama in mind when he said, "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes elections by the incompetent many for the appointment of the corrupt few."
Throughout his tenure, he's done what supporters thought impossible. He governs to the right of George Bush. He wages multiple imperial wars, numerous proxy ones, and plans more at the expense of homeland needs.
He looted the nation's wealth, wrecked the economy, and consigned growing millions to impoverishment without jobs, homes, hope or futures.
He institutionalized tyranny. He presides over a bogus democracy under a homeland police state apparatus.
He targets whistleblowers, dissenters, Muslims, and environmental and animal rights activists called terrorists.
He spends more on militarism than the rest of the world combined at a time America has no enemies except the ones it invents.
He partners with Israeli state terror, occupation, and imperial aggressiveness.
He uses NATO as an imperial tool killing machine. He plunges it like a dagger into humanity's heart. He supplements with death squad diplomacy.
He gave Wall Street crooks trillions of dollars while popular needs go begging.
He presides over the most massive wealth transfer in history. It's the most egregious form of grand theft. Debt reduction and austerity are scams to continue it.
He targets independent leaders for regime change. At the same time, he supports some of the world's most ruthless, corrupt despots.
He governs lawlessly for monied interests that control him. He supports wealth and power.
He spurns vital populist interests. He deplores progressive change.
He broke every major promise made. He exceeds the worst of George Bush.
He governs by diktat authority. He decides who's free or imprisoned. He chooses who lives or dies.
His kill list institutionalized murder as official administration policy.
He promised to end torture but continues it.
He spurns human needs, rule of law principles, other democratic values, and right over wrong.
He spies on Americans more aggressively than any previous president.
He supports ending Net Neutrality for greater corporate control and enrichment. It's also about suppresssing freedom of thought and expression.
He's waging class warfare against millions of ordinary Americans.
He supports austerity for those least advantaged at the same time greater wealth gets earmarked for corporate favorites and rich elites.
He plans eliminating New Deal and Great Society gains. He's eroding Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security en route to ending them altogether.
He wages war on truth through aggressive media control.
He's commodifying education. He plans ending government's responsibility for it. He wants it as another business profit center.
He's destroying decades of hard won labor rights.
He endorses America's race to the bottom. He's heading it for banana republic harshness and impoverishment.
His financial reform is stealth theft and consolidation for global monetary control.
His healthcare plan taxes more, provides less, places profits above human need, leaves millions uninsured, many more underinsured, and makes a dysfunctional system worse.
His agribusiness empowerment policies benefit corporate giants at the expense of small farmers and consumers.
He promised change after eight Bush/Cheney years. Voters believed him. He won the most sweeping non-incumbent victory in over 50 years. He gained Democrat majorities in both Houses.
He's America's first Black president. Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel hailed the result.
She called an Obama administration a "transformational presidency, (a) new era of possibility, a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda and a mandate for bold action....Tonight we celebrate."
Despite betrayal and failure throughout his tenure, Nation magazine still supports him. Recent articles asked "What Do We See in Obama?" saying:
On the campaign trail, he's "sound(ing) like the politician many liberals thought they had voted for: principled, smart and commanding rather than the compromised, inept moderate negotiator we have seen so much of."
"That many on the right have distorted Obama's record beyond recognition is predictable." Despite his "mixed bag" record, "like any elected politician he must navigate the situation he inherited."
In other words, despite hugely destructive policies, "(y)ou don't know what's in his heart."
His shortcomings aside, "(h)e's the best that could be elected last time, and this time."
Another article headlined "Obama Has a Jobs Plan. Romney Doesn't," saying:
"....Romney's prescriptions for the economy would only make a bad situation significantly worse."
Throughout his tenure, Obama did more to destroy jobs, not create them.
His Jobs Act is a sham. It does nothing to create jobs. It consists of corporate handouts, greater deregulation, and more austerity. It facilitates greater fraud. It exacerbates earlier policies. They replaced higher paying, full-time jobs with low-wage part-time/temp ones.
Still another article headlined "A Politics for the 99 Percent," saying:
"This year will feature the most ideologically polarized election since the Reagan-Carter face-off of 1980."
"A radical-right Republican Party, backed by big-money interests, has made itself the tribune of privilege and will do significant damage if it takes control in Washington."
"Staving off that outcome depends on mobilizing the Democratic base."
"....(P)rogressives must expand the limits of the current debate, even as they rally against the threat posed by a Republican victory."
"No one should discount the potential destructiveness of a victory for Mitt Romney."
"A Romney victory would buoy a Republican right eager to roll back social progress, constrict voting rights and exacerbate racial divides in an era of middle-class decline."
"The offensive against labor and workers' rights would escalate. And Romney's bellicose foreign policy would make George W. Bush look dovish."
"If Romney wins, we will spend four years fighting to limit the damage he will inflict on the nation."
"Obama has indicted the right's extremes, arguing eloquently for public initiatives to save the middle class and revive the American dream."
"He's made inequality a central theme of his campaign, and he will defend tax hikes on the wealthy and investments in areas vital to our future, from education to new energy."
He "proposed moderate measures in critical areas: an economic stimulus, plus reforms in the healthcare, energy and financial sectors."
"Democrats urge activists to swallow their disappointment with the president and pull together to get out the vote."
"In 2012 progressives have little choice....Now we must reach out, teach, engage and mobilize millions of Americans. We must provide them with a sense of hope, a story of possibility, and enlist" their support.
These and other Nation articles show contempt for ordinary people. They're suffering through America's worst ever economic crisis. Obama inherited dire conditions and exacerbated them.
Nation editors ignore Obama's imperial lawlessness. They support a man they should denounce. Their blind idolatry and contempt for truth betrays readers.
Despite governing to the right of George Bush, breaking every major promise made, uncompromisingly supporting wealth, power, and permanent imperial wars, consigning growing millions to poverty, unemployment and despair, and betraying his core supporters, Nation editors still place Democrat party politics above principles.
Obama mirrors the worst of right wing policies. His administration inherited hard times and worsened them.
Republicans promise no better. America's duopoly system is too corrupt to fix. So-called progressive editors are blind to reality. Radical change only offers hope.
Obama's record reveals his anti-progressive agenda. Believing a second term promises change is shameless, unprincipled arrogance. Rhetoric alone separates him from Romney. Ideologically, each mirrors the other.
Corrupt political decay defines duopoly power. It's too malignant to fix. Change depends on tearing it down and starting over. Obama backers ignore reality.
His entire record reflects betrayal and irreparable harm to millions. Early hope became disillusion, frustration, and anger.
Imagine what's coming post-November. Obama or Romney makes no difference. Expect the worst of all possible worlds. The only solution is world revolution.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.